FIFA - Decisión disputa Lucero 03082023

REF. FPSD-9704

Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed on 3 August 2023 regarding an employment-related dispute concerning the player Juan Martin Lucero, Argentina

COMPOSITION:

Lívia SILVA KÄGI (Brazil & Switzerland), Deputy Chairperson Stella MARIS JUNCOS (Argentina), member Jorge GUTIÉRREZ (Costa Rica), member

CLAIMANT:

Colo Colo, Chile Represented by Senn Ferrero

FIRST RESPONDENT:

Juan Martin Lucero, Argentina Represented by Ariel Reck

SECOND RESPONDENT:

Club Fortaleza – CE, Brazil Represented by Felipe Macedo pg. 2

REF. FPSD-9704

I. Facts of the case

1. On January 4, 2022, the Chilean club Colo Colo (hereinafter: the club or Colo Colo) and the Argentine player Juan Martin Lucero (hereinafter: the player) entered into a set of contracts that include: an employment contract (hereinafter: the Employment Contract), a federative contract

(hereinafter: the Federative Contract), and an “option to purchase rights contract” (hereinafter: the Option Contract), collectively referred to as “the Contracts”.

2. Art. 6 of the Employment Contract reads inter alia as follows: Sexto: Duración. El presente contrato estará vigente desde la fecha de celebración del presente instrumento hasta el 31 de diciembre de 2023 (salvo ejercicio de la opción por el club o ejercicio de la salida anticipada por el Jugador conforme se regulan más abajo) Asimismo, las Partes declaran y dejan constancia que el club Colo-Colo tiene una opción de compra preferente de los derechos federativos y el 80% de los derechos económicos del Jugador la que podrá ejercer hasta el 01 de diciembre de 2022. En el caso de ser ejercida por Colo-Colo, el contrato

de trabajo del Jugador se prorrogará hasta el término de la Temporada 2025. Para que se entienda ejercida la opción de compra, Colo-Colo deberá enviar un correo electrónico al correo señalado en la comparecencia del Jugador, a mas tardar con fecha 01 de diciembre de 2022. Sin perjuicio de lo anterior, las Partes acuerdan que el Jugador podrá terminar anticipadamente su contrato sin pago de indemnización de alguna al club Colo Colo, única y exclusivamente en el caso que Colo-Colo no ejerciera la opción de compra acordada entre ambas partes, por los derechos federativos y el 80% de los derechos económicos del Jugador. (…) Freely translated into English: Sixth: Duration. This contract shall be in force from the date of execution of this instrument until December 31, 2023 (unless the club exercises its option or the Player exercises his early departure as regulated below). Likewise, the Parties declare and place on record that the Colo-Colo club has a preferential purchase option of the federative rights and 80% of the economic rights of the Player, which may be exercised until December 1, 2022. If exercised by Colo-Colo, the Player's employment contract will be extended until the end of the 2025 Season. In order for the purchase option to be deemed exercised, Colo-Colo must send an email to the email address indicated in the Player's appearance, no later than December 1, 2022. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties agree that the Player may terminate his contract early without payment of any indemnity to the Colo Colo club, solely and exclusively in the event that Colo Colo does not exercise the purchase option agreed between both parties, for the federative rights and 80% of the economic rights of the Player. (...) pg. 3

REF. FPSD-9704

3. Clause 5 of the Option Contract reads inter alia as follows: 5.- OPCIÓN PREFERENTE El Club podrá ejercer una opción preferente por sobre cualquier otro club de fútbol profesional, para adquirir la propiedad del 80 % de los derechos económicos y los derechos federativos del Jugador, por las Temporadas 2024 y 2025 del fútbol profesional chileno. El ejercicio del uso de la opción de compra deberá ser comunicada al correo electrónico del Jugador señalado en la comparecencia, bastando la comunicación por correo electrónico para que se entienda ejercida por parte de Colo-Colo.

Las Partes acuerdan que el valor de la opción de compra del 80% de los derechos económicos derivados de los derechos federativos del Jugador por las Temporadas 2024 y 2025, ascienden a la suma neta o líquida de USD 900.000.- (novecientos mil dólares de los Estados Unidos de América). El plazo límite para ejercer la opción aquí señalada es el 1 de diciembre de 2022. Si hasta esa fecha Colo-Colo no hubiera ejercido la opción, El Jugador tendrá la facultad exclusiva de decidir si quiere continuar en Colo-Colo en la temporada 2023 o si desea rescindir el contrato de trabajo que lo vincula al Club. De decidir no continuar con el vínculo, bastará su comunicación entre el 15 y el 31 de diciembre de 2022 para rescindir el vínculo sin sanciones e ninguna índole ni reclamo económico de ningún tipo (incluyendo indemnización por rescisión, reembolso por las sumas pagadas por derechos económicos y/o cualquier otro concepto). (…) En el caso que Colo-Colo ejerciera la Opción de Compra y el Jugador no firmara o suscribiera los

contratos y documentos que lo habiliten como Jugador hasta el término de la Temporada 2025, en base a las condiciones contractuales establecidas en su contrato de trabajo, deberá indemnizar a Colo-Colo con la suma neta de USD 1.000.000.- (un millón de dólares de los Estados Unidos de América). Se deja constancia que los montos señalados corresponderán, a título de cláusula penal, a una evaluación anticipada y convencional de todos los perjuicios causados, sean éstos directos e indirectos, previstos e imprevistos, patrimoniales y morales, moratorias y compensatorios resultantes del no cumplimiento de la obligación

Freely translated into English: 5.- PREFERRED OPTION The Club may exercise a preferential option over any other professional soccer club to acquire ownership of 80% of the economic rights and the federative rights of the Player for the 2024 and 2025 seasons of Chilean professional soccer. The exercise of the use of the purchase option must be communicated to the e-mail address of the Player indicated in the appearance, and the communication by e-mail is sufficient for it to be understood to have been exercised by Colo-Colo.

The Parties agree that the value of the option to purchase 80% of the economic rights derived from the Player's federative rights for the 2024 and 2025 Seasons, amount to the net or liquid sum of USD 900,000 (nine hundred thousand dollars of the United States of America). pg. 4

REF. FPSD-9704

The deadline for exercising the option set forth herein is December 1, 2022. If by that date ColoColo has not exercised the option, the Player will have the exclusive right to decide whether he wants to continue at Colo-Colo in the 2023 season or if he wishes to terminate the employment contract that binds him to the Club. If he decides not to continue with the contract, his

communication between December 15 and December 31, 2022 will be sufficient to terminate the contract without sanctions of any kind or economic claim of any kind (including termination indemnity, reimbursement for sums paid for economic rights and/or any other concept). (...) In the event that Colo-Colo exercises the Purchase Option and the Player does not sign or subscribe the contracts and documents that qualify him as a Player until the end of the 2025 Season, based on the contractual conditions established in his employment contract, he shall indemnify Colo-Colo with the net sum of USD 1,000,000. It is hereby stated for the record that the aforementioned amounts shall correspond, as a penalty clause, to an anticipated and conventional assessment of all damages caused, whether direct and indirect, foreseen and unforeseen, patrimonial and moral, moratorium and compensatory resulting from non-compliance with the obligation.

4. On November 15, 2022, Colo Colo informed the player in the following terms (freely translated into English from original in Spanish): Colo-Colo, by means of the present letter, comes to exercise, in due time and form, the right to purchase 80% of the Economic and Federative Rights of the player Juan Martín Lucero, established in the second clause of the framework agreement of December 31, 2021; fifth clause of the contract of assignment of Economic Rights dated January 4, 2021; and of the seventh clause of the Professional Soccer Player Employment contract of Mr. Juan Martín Lucero.

As also set forth in the aforementioned documents, the value of such purchase, amounting to US$900,000, will be paid by Colo-Colo to Mr. Lucero in two equal installments of US$450,000 each. The first installment will be paid in January 2023 and the second in December 2023.

5. Between December 26 and 28, 2022, the parties exchanged emails in which they disagreed on the interpretation of the various clauses of the Contracts.

6. On January 3, 2023, the player sent a communication to Colo Colo in the following terms (freely

translated into English from original in Spanish): I am writing to you in relation to the employment contract and the contract for the assignment of economic rights that binds us and in particular to the FIFTH clause of the latter agreement. In this regard, I hereby inform you that I have decided to make use of the option provided for in said clause for the termination of the relationship between the parties against payment of the net amount of USD 1,000,000. Consequently, I request you to inform me within the next 3 days of the bank account details where pg. 5 REF. FPSD-9704 the corresponding deposit can be made.

7. On January 4, 5 and 8, 2023, Colo Colo informed the player that his Contracts were still in full force and effect and requested him to rejoin the club.

8. On January 5, 2023, Colo Colo informed the Brazilian club Fortaleza (hereinafter Fortaleza) that the player had a valid contract and urged it not to sign the player.

9. On January 9, 2023, the player sent a communication to Colo Colo reiterating his position.

10. On the same day, Colo Colo asked the player to rejoin the discipline of the club.

11. On January 12, 2023, the player sent Colo Colo Colo proof of payment of USD 1,000,000.

12. On January 17, 2023, the player and Fortaleza signed an employment contract valid until December 31, 2026.

II. Proceedings before FIFA

13. On March 22, 2023, Colo Colo filed the claim at hand before FIFA. A brief summary of the position of the parties is detailed in continuation.

a. Position of Colo Colo

14. Colo Colo argues that its employment relationship was valid and binding, in principle, until December 31, 2023. However, the Contracts also included a preferential option for Colo-Colo to unilaterally extend its term until December 31, 2025, provided that a number of formal

requirements were met.

15. Colo Colo argues that clause 5 of the Option Contract "only contemplates the economic consequences in the event that Colo-Colo correctly exercises the option right and the Player opposes such exercise, refusing to sign or subscribe all those contracts or documents that are necessary for such extension of the contractual relationship to be formalized".

16. According to Colo Colo, the player "is aware that he has breached the Contract and that he must compensate Colo-Colo for it, although he confuses the penalty provided for in the event that the Player refuses to extend the Contract for two (2) more years, with an alleged exit clause that would even allow him to contractually dissociate himself from Colo-Colo before December 31, 2023".

17. Colo Colo argues that the player did not have just cause to terminate the contract and, therefore, should be held liable for such breach. Colo Colo therefore understands that it is entitled to compensation payable by the player and Fortaleza should be held jointly and severally liable. pg. 6

REF. FPSD-9704

18. In relation to the calculation of the compensation, Colo Colo Colo alleges that the direct damage suffered amounts to USD 1,200,000.00, corresponding to the amount of the transfer fee it had to pay for the acquisition of the Player's replacement, the Paraguayan striker Dario Lezcano Fariña

(hereinafter: Lezcano).

19. Colo Colo also alleges a loss of profit in the amount of USD 913,384, "which is the amount budgeted by Colo-Colo for the sale of the Player's jerseys during the year 2023".

20. Therefore, Colo-Colo understands that it is entitled to receive compensation in the amount of USD 2,113,384.00 as a consequence of the termination of the Agreement without just cause.

21. In the alternative, Colo Colo understands that the indemnity should be calculated based on the DRC's practice of calculating the average between the value of the contract and the contract with

Fortaleza.

22. Colo Colo understands that sporting sanctions should be imposed on the player and Fortaleza.

23. Colo Colo presented the following requests for relief: I.- Declare that the present lawsuit is admissible; II.- That this Claim filed by Colo-Colo against the Player and Fortaleza be fully upheld and it be

declared that:

1. The Player unilaterally and prematurely terminated the Contract with Colo-Colo without just cause and during the Protected Period; and 2.

Fortaleza induced the Player to such unlawful termination of the employment relationship between the Player and Colo-Colo. III.- Consequently, the Player and Fortaleza (jointly and severally) are ordered to pay Colo-Colo:

1. The amount of USD 2,113,384 with interest at 5% per annum as indemnification for damages caused by the unilateral and early termination of the Contract without just cause, being the result of adding the cost assumed by Colo-Colo to replace the Player and the lost profit from the sale of jerseys.

Or subsidiarily:

2. The amount of USD 1,200,000 with interest at 5% per annum32 , being only the cost assumed by Colo-Colo to replace the Player.

Or subsidiarily:

3. The average between the six hundred thousand U.S. dollars (USD 600,000.00) net that remained pg. 7

REF. FPSD-9704 to be collected by the Player until December 31, 2023 in accordance with the Contract, and the proportional part of said season taking into account his current contract with Fortaleza (for which Colo-Colo kindly requests the DRC to require the Player and/or Fortaleza to provide the contract(s) on the basis of which said figure should be extracted), also with interest at 5% per annum. IV.- Additionally, the most severe sporting sanctions are imposed: To the Player for breach of contract during the Protected Period in accordance with Article 17(3) of the FIFA RETJ; and 2.

2. A Fortaleza for inducing a breach of contract during the Protected Period pursuant to Article

17(4) of the FIFA RETJ. V.- Finally, the Player and Fortaleza are ordered to assume all the costs of the present proceeding. b. Reply of the Player

24. In his reply, the player claims that Colo-Colo notified the exercise of the purchase option, but never paid the sum of USD 450,000.

25. The player understands that the clause 5 of the Option Contract was drafted by the club itself and its own text qualifies it as a "Penalty Clause" and compensates him over and above the player's residual wages until the end of the season.

26. The player insists that "the text states that it covers any direct and indirect, foreseen and unforeseen, patrimonial and moral damages".

27. According to the player "it could never be argued that he terminated his contract without cause. Much less could additional compensation and the application of sporting sanctions be claimed".

28. The player argues that there are two types of clauses: - On the one hand, those of anticipated determination of the damage (liquidated damages) that must be balanced and proportional to the damage suffered. - On the other hand, those that establish the possibility for the player to pay a price to be released from the contract, which are defined by the commentary to the FIFA regulations as

"buy-out clause":

29. In the player's opinion, the nature of the clause 5 "is unquestionable: not only does it expressly state that it is a penalty clause and nothing is said about the application of sports sanctions in case the player exercises it, but the amount of the clause (USD 1,000,000) bears no relation to compensation of the positive interest, in fact, it is equivalent to almost twice the salaries that the player had left to receive until the end of the contract".

30. Therefore, the player understands that since the player has paid the agreed price to be released, pg. 8

REF. FPSD-9704 the claim is unfounded and should be rejected.

31. In turn, the player argues that the clause is clear and unambiguous and does not require

interpretation. However, should the Chamber consider so, the "in dubio contra proferentem" and "in dubio pro operario" principles should be applied.

32. The player claims that after the execution of the purchase option, Colo Colo Colo did not pay the USD 900,000 and "placidly received the sum of USD 1,000,000. And when we use the term "placidly" it is because not only did it save the payment of the option price (it went from having to pay USD 900,000 to receiving USD 1,000,000) but it never offered the player to return the amount he received, nor did it impute it to the compensation claimed."

33. According to the player, "the meaning that COLO-COLO is now trying to give to the FIFTH clause is so forced that in the event that its subsidiary claim is granted, i.e. that the player is ordered to pay his residual salaries until the end of the 2023 season for USD 600,000, COLO-COLO would succeed in its claim but would absurdly have to return the sum of USD 400,000 to the player".

34. The player emphasizes that he "complied with all his obligations, gave notice of the exercise of the buy-out clause and paid the price agreed in clause FIFTH". On the contrary, Colo Colo Colo did not comply or offered to comply with the payment of the purchase option, so that in light of the principle "non adimpleti contractus" the claim must also be rejected.

35. As for the amounts claimed, the player claims that Colo Colo does not provide any supporting evidence.

36. In subsidiary form, the player asserts that any compensation eventually awarded to Colo Colo Colo should be deducted from the amount of USD 1,000,000 already paid by the player.

37. The player also refers to the contract provided by the alleged replacement, Lezcano. This contract in its art. 7.6 expressly states that there is no exit clause. In the player's opinion "This clause added

after the conflict with Lucero is the final proof that Lucero's contract DID have an exit clause and that, from now on Colo Colo has decided that its players' contracts no longer have it".

38. On a subsidiary basis, the Player concludes that "even if FIFA were to interpret CLAUSE FIVE as an advance determination of damages clause and not a "buy out clause", due to the special circumstances of the case, a sports sanction could not be applied to the Player either, given that: - The agreed price was paid. - The clause that compensates almost 2 times the positive interest rate - The Clause was drafted by the club - Should be interpreted against the drafter and in turn employer. - The good FAITH of the PLAYER, - The failure of Colo Colo to pay and/or even offer to pay the option price."

39. The player presented the following request for relief: pg. 9

REF. FPSD-9704 1.- That the claim be deemed to have been answered in due time and form. 2.- On the grounds stated above, the claim filed is rejected and FIFA's procedural costs are imposed on the claimant club. 3.- In the event that COLO-COLO's position is admitted, i.e. that it was a clause of anticipated determination of the damage, we request that it be considered paid with the payment made on January 12, 2023 and that no sporting penalty be applied. In this case, if the condemnation amounts for positive interest were lower than the amounts paid by the Player, Colo Colo Colo is ordered to reimburse the Player for the amounts paid in excess. c. Reply of Fortaleza

40. In its reply, Fortaleza sustains that art. 6, 1º of the Employment Contract sustains that it starts on 4 January 2022 and ends on 31 December 2023, "EXCEPT in case the Club triggered an extension option until 2025 season, OR the Player decides to terminate it in the end of 2022".

41. In Fortaleza's view "the parties' rights whether to extend (by the Colo Colo) or to terminate (by the Player) the Employment Contract are not subordinated, but on the opposite, they are completely independent from each other: "except exercise of the option by the club OR exercise of the early departure by the Player (...)" (emphasis added). In case the parties wanted to settle for a reciprocal clause (when both parties need to agree) and/or sub conditional clause (when one needed to be triggered first) they would have used the conjunction "y" (which in English is "and") in that sentence, however the parties used the conjunction "o" (which in English is "or") to demonstrate the independence between these rights that are evidently of unilateral nature (when does not require both parties to consent)."

42. Fortaleza argues that the amount of USD 1.200.000,00 claimed by Colo Colo that was used to hire Mr. Lezcano is not a transfer fee, but it is an amount paid as economic rights directly to Mr.

Lezcano. In other words, Colo Colo hired Mr. Lezcano as a free agent without any transfer costs.

43. Moreover, Fortaleza deems that Colo Colo has not provided any evidence substantiating that it suffered any loss as a result of the Player not being in its squad for the 2023 season. Furthermore, "no evidence has been adduced of any ongoing or future marketing, merchandising or sponsorship contracts which Colo Colo had or would have signed with third parties in exclusive reliance on the Player's continuation at the club".

44. Fortaleza concludes that Colo Colo has not met its burden of proof; so, its request for a financial compensation of these amounts (i) USD 2,113,384.00; and (ii) USD 1,200,000.00; shall be dismissed.

45. Regarding the last alternative value requested by Colo Colo in the amount of USD 600,000.00,

Fortaleza deems that Colo Colo has received USD 1,000,000 and has not paid USD 900,000 for the pg. 10 REF. FPSD-9704 extension of the contract for the 2024 and 2025 seasons. Thus, no damages have been suffered.

46. Fortaleza sustains that it hired the Player as a free agent as the Player "was legally entitled to terminate the Contract without any payment or sanction. Alternatively, as the extensions of the Contract are null and void, it is clear that the Contract expired on 31 December 2022. Therefore, the Player does not owe any amount as compensation to Colo Colo".

47. Fortaleza deems that the termination of the Contract was not during the protected period.

48. Fortaleza concludes that it could not suffer - in any case -, sporting sanctions because it is established that Fortaleza has not induced the Player to terminate the Contract.

49. Fortaleza filed the following requests for relief: A) Accept this response against the claim lodged by the Claimant; B) Dismiss all claims presented by Colo Colo for the reasons exposed in this Answer; C) Alternatively, to partially dismiss the claims of Colo Colo as requested above; D) Eventually in the hypothetical scenario that the Player is condemned to pay compensation to Colo Colo, to do not consider Fortaleza jointly and severally liable to pay any amount to Colo Colo; E) Do not impose sporting sanction on Fortaleza; F) Order Colo Colo to bear any and all administrative and procedural costs, which have already been incurred or may eventually be incurred in connection with these or future proceedings; G) Order Colo Colo to pay any legal expenses or costs faced by the Second Respondent in an amount not less than USD 40,000.

d. Replica of Colo Colo

50. Colo Colo claims that it did not pay USD 900,000 because the player terminated the contract prior to the accrual of the first installment (USD 450,000) in January 2023.

51. Colo Colo insists that what the player has indemnified with the payment of USD 1,000,000 "are

the 2024 and 2025 seasons (for forcibly preventing the extension of the Contract), and what is missing is precisely the 2023 season".

52. In Colo Colo's opinion, the clause in question did not give the player the possibility to terminate the contract immediately or to terminate it before the originally foreseen duration (i.e. December

31, 2023).

53. Regarding Fortaleza's response, Colo Colo understands that the referenced clauses are not pg. 11

REF. FPSD-9704 abusive or contrary to FIFA regulations, which is why the player has not argued anything in that regard.

54. In turn, Colo Colo argues that "the inducement (and bad faith) is undisputed".

55. Colo Colo emphasizes the following points: - The player is not telling the truth when he says that Colo-Colo never objected to the Player's departure and "placidly" accepted the payment of USD 1,000,000. - Clause 5 can never be interpreted as a "buy-out clause", since it did not confer any contractual rights on the Player, but rather, on the contrary, it penalized him financially for the breach of the obligation provided for in that same stipulation. - Fortaleza has not provided a single valid argument to exonerate itself of its responsibility.

56. Colo Colo argues that the player's actual remuneration with Fortaleza has to be higher than that set out in the contract available at TMS and that the parties have not provided all the documentation in this regard.

57. Colo amended its requests for relief as follows: I.- Declare that the Complaint is admissible; II.- The claim filed by Colo-Colo against the Player and Fortaleza be fully upheld and it be declared

that:

1. The Player unilaterally and prematurely terminated the Contract with Colo-Colo without just cause and during the Protected Period; and 2.

Fortaleza induced the Player to such unlawful termination of the employment relationship between the Player and Colo-Colo. III.- Consequently, the Player and Fortaleza (jointly and severally) are ordered to pay Colo-Colo:

1. The amount of USD 2,113,384.00 with interest at 5% per annum3 as compensation for damages caused by the unilateral and early termination of the Contract without just cause, being the result of adding the cost assumed by Colo-Colo to replace the Player and the lost profit from the sale of jerseys.

Or subsidiarily:

2. The amount of one million two hundred thousand U.S. dollars (USD 1,200,000.00) with interest at 5% per annum4 , being only the cost assumed by Colo-Colo to replace the Player. pg. 12

REF. FPSD-9704

Or subsidiarily:

3. The amount of six hundred and seventy-eight thousand nine hundred and eighty-two U.S. dollars and eighty-six cents (USD 678,982.86) net, which corresponds to the average between the amounts that remained to be collected from the Player until December 31, 2023 in accordance with the Contract, and the proportional part of said season taking into account his current contract with Fortaleza5, also with interest of 5% per annum.

IV.- Additionally, the most severe sporting sanctions are imposed: To the Player for breach of contract during the Protected Period in accordance with Article 17(3) of the FIFA RETJ; and 2.

2. To Fortaleza for inducing a breach of contract during the Protected Period pursuant to Article 17(4) of the FIFA RETJ.

V.- Finally, the Player and Fortaleza are ordered to assume all the costs of the present proceeding. e. Duplica of the Player

58. The player insists that clause 5 "is very clear and that it enshrines the player's right to be released from the contract against payment of the sum of USD 1,000,000, but even if its meaning could be doubted - as the CLUB pretends to do - it could never be interpreted against the player and in favor of the person who drafted it".

59. In the player's opinion, his failure to claim the USD 900,000 for the execution of the option by Colo

Colo, "does nothing more than evidence the player's good faith."

60. The player claims that Colo Colo has not accredited that Mr Lezcano was hired as his replacement.

61. The player concludes that despite the "effort made by the Claimant to increase the positive interest from USD 600,000 to USD 678,982.86, it can only be said that it serves again to confirm that never can CLAUSE FIFTH be a damages clause, because even on the basis of this new number (forcibly reached) it would still compensate almost twice the positive interest."

62. The player requests that: 1.- The rejoinder be deemed to have been filed. 2.- The claim filed by the Club is rejected, in accordance with the arguments expressed in our answer to the claim and ratified in this document.

f. Duplica of Fortaleza

63. Fortaleza sustains that Colo Colo's request to have "full disclosure" should be dismissed since "the "full disclosure" was already made by FIFA in this case." pg. 13

REF. FPSD-9704

64. Fortaleza insists that "no breach of contract occurred when the Player signed with Fortaleza neither an inducement to breach a contract with Colo Colo. As a result no compensation must be paid by the Player and Fortaleza to Colo Colo and no sporting sanction can be implemented against the respondents".

65. Fortaleza requests as follows: A) Accept this response against the claim lodged by the Claimant; B) Dismiss all claims presented by Colo Colo; C) Alternatively, to partially dismiss the claims of Colo Colo; D) Eventually in the hypothetical scenario that the Player is condemned to pay compensation to Colo Colo, to do not consider Fortaleza jointly and severally liable to pay any amount to Colo Colo; E) Do not impose sporting sanction on Fortaleza; F) Order Colo Colo to bear any and all administrative and procedural costs, which have already been incurred or may eventually be incurred in connection with these or future proceedings; G) Order Colo Colo to pay any legal expenses or costs faced by the Second Respondent in an amount

n